Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

We disagree with the proposition put by the government. Quite simply, for the second time this week, the Senate has voted in favour of corporate transparency and, for the second time this week, the House of Representatives has been asked to concur. All Labor members of the House concur with the Senate. I understand that members of the crossbench also concur with the Senate, and so they should. It is important at any time that incorporated bodies have transparent reportage of financial arrangements. It is important at any time, but, in the midst of a financial crisis, with such economic uncertainty, it is more important than ever.

These provisions, when inserted in the act 25 years ago, were a part of a temporary and transitional arrangement. They were supposed to be reviewed. They were not. They were supposed to be transitioned to be removed out. They were not. They apply to in excess of 1,000 very large corporate organisations, some of the biggest private companies in the country. We say that we should be removing this anomaly which applies one set of rules to some private companies and a different set of rules to other private companies. It's an unlevel playing field that those members opposite should be supporting Labor in having removed.

When this matter was last before the House, there were three government members in the chamber. There was the member for Forde, a former financial planner. I fully expected him to jump and concur with Labor in defence of the financial planners, whose interests are being compromised by the fact that this bill is in deadlock, but there has not been a word from the member for Forde. There was the member for Goldstein, who finds it incredibly difficult to remain silent on any matter as soon as he's awake, but there has not been a word from the member from Goldstein. It fell to the assistant minister, the member for Petrie, to run the defence for the government. We were waiting with baited breath to hear what possible public interest reason the government could be advancing to have one set of rules apply to some corporate entities and another set of rules—a much more stringent set of reporting rules—to others.

Unable to articulate the public interest reasoning for having two sets of rules, he tabled a document. I've managed to obtain a copy of the document, and it reads as follows: 'The issue raised by this amendment is the subject of a recommendation in the Senate economic committee's report Corporate Tax Avoidance Part 1: You cannot tax what you cannot see. The reason we reject it is that the House will not pre-empt the government's response to this recommendation as a part of its response to the Senate economic committee's corporate tax avoidance report.' Members of the House might be interested to know when this report was tabled. Maybe it was last year. Maybe it was the year before. Maybe it was the year before that. No, it was August 2015. Students of this place know that's three prime ministers and three treasurers ago. We've been waiting a long time for this response. There can be no justification for further delay.

This amendment has been recommended by the corporate regulator, who has found as follows:

The lack of availability of public financial reports reduces transparency about possible indicators of tax avoidance or tax minimisation.

So, when we ask again, 'What possible reason could members opposite have for rejecting this amendment that's been put and rejected?' the only conclusion we can find is they are protecting their corporate mates and their corporate tax avoidance. There can be no other reason. Perhaps, as has been put elsewhere, there are large donors to the Liberal Party who find themselves on this list. I hope that is not the reason. I expect that the assistant minister at the table will leap to their defence and articulate a plausible public reason for why the rules should not be altered, and, if he's unable to do that, he should join with the crossbenchers and Labor and accept the message from the Senate. (Time expired)

See this speech in context